DOCSLIB.ORG

Total and Complete Shutdown

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Total and Complete Shutdown MuslimBanReport_Cover#Final.pdf 1 27/03/18 13:32 TOTAL AND COMPLETE SHUTDOWN C M Y CM MY CY CMY K How the Trump Administration is Working to © Lorie Shaull © Lorie Ban Muslims from the United States Published April 2018 A Publication of Muslim Advocates Muslim Advocates is a national legal advocacy and educational organization that works on the frontlines of civil rights to guarantee freedom and justice for Americans of all faiths. Muslim Advocates www.muslimadvocates.org [email protected] © All rights reserved. TOTAL AND COMPLETE SHUTDOWN How the Trump Administration is Working to Ban Muslims from the United States TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary 01 II. A Foundation of Anti-Muslim Bigotry 03 III. Multiple Versions, Same Muslim Ban 07 IV. The Muslim Refugee Ban 14 V. A False National Security Justification 16 VI. The Behind-the-Scenes Muslim Ban 21 VII. Americans are Not Exempt from the Muslim Ban 27 VIII. The Muslim Visa Plunge 29 IX. Conclusion 32 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 27, 2017—just seven days after his inauguration— President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning the entry of nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries.1 This was President Trump’s first attempt to make good on one of the central promises of his campaign: a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States.2 That order quickly became known around the country and across the globe as the “Muslim Ban.” To those who have casually followed the Muslim Ban since that weekend in January 2017—the chaos at airports, the various iterations of the policy, the steady stream of legal filings, the broad public mobilization—it may appear as though this has been a poorly executed and largely ineffective effort. The reality, however, is starkly different. Away from the din and drama of airports and courtrooms, the Trump administration has designed and implemented an unprecedented, thorough, and sophisticated effort to stigmatize Muslims, vilify Islam, and circumvent the Constitution’s promise of freedom from religious discrimination. Total and Complete Shutdown | 1 | Muslim Advocates As this report will detail, President Trump and his administration have relentlessly committed to their anti-Muslim agenda. In addition to vigorously defending the Muslim Ban in court, they have been hard at work behind the scenes to enact a web of policies and practices across a range of federal agencies, all with the goal of restricting the entry of Muslims into the country. They include: • Abusing executive authority on immigration and refugee policy by hiding many barriers and their official justifications under shrouds of secrecy; • Implementing a complicated, intrusive, and opaque set of hurdles to visa approvals for Muslims seeking to enter the United States;3 • Widespread harassment and discrimination of travelers who are or are perceived to be Muslim;4 • Significant decline in both visa issuance and immigration and refugee admissions to persons from Muslim countries in the first year of the Trump presidency;5 • Creating such a toxic atmosphere that many Muslims—even those who do not come from one of the countries directly impacted by the Muslim Ban—are shut out or deterred from even trying to travel to the United States.6 The stories behind these numbers are tragic. Muslims have been separated from their families, stranded in dangerous circumstances abroad, and made to feel threatened in their own country. This report details the many ways in which the Trump administration has successfully implemented its efforts to ban and disparage Muslims and highlights the need for continuing advocacy and resistance to this brazenly discriminatory and fundamentally un-American agenda. As a nation founded in part by those seeking refuge from religious persecution, the Constitution’s prohibition on the government favoring one religion over another and its protections from discrimination based on religion are well-established. The Trump administration’s efforts to trample on these cherished protections run afoul of longstanding anti-discrimination laws enacted by Congress to ensure that no one suffers mistreatment simply because of where they come from or what they believe. This is why courts across the country have consistently rejected the Muslim Ban and similar policies put forward by the Trump administration. Total and Complete Shutdown | 2 | Muslim Advocates II. A FOUNDATION OF ANTI-MUSLIM BIGOTRY A total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. Donald J. Trump, 2015 From the earliest days of his presidential campaign, Trump has consistently attacked and denigrated immigrants and communities of color. Muslims—those living in the United States as well as those who reside abroad—have been particularly frequent targets of his attacks. Over the course of his campaign, then-candidate Trump disparaged Muslims as “problems,” promoted demonstrably false and inflammatory anti-Muslim propaganda, called for the surveillance and closure of the country’s mosques, proposed a national Muslim registry, and endorsed the practice of profiling Muslims on the basis of their religion. In December 2015, Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”7 President Trump has never distanced himself from the anti-Muslim rhetoric that was the hallmark of his campaign. Instead, as courts have recently noted, he has doubled down on his anti-Muslim rhetoric,8 and made clear that his animus against Muslims is the foundation of policies including the Muslim Ban and the heightened vetting and surveillance of immigrants. Total and Complete Shutdown | 3 | Muslim Advocates Candidacy In September 2015, just months after announcing his candidacy for president, Trump held a town hall event in New Hampshire during which an audience member stated: “[w]e have a problem in this country; it’s called Muslims,” and asked “[w]hen can we get rid of them?”9 Trump replied by asserting that “a lot of people” were voicing this concern and that “[w]e’re going to be looking at that and plenty of other things.”10 As his campaign continued to unfold, Trump put forward a steady stream of anti-Muslim proposals. On November 16, 2015, Trump stated that he would consider closing down mosques in the United States, declaring that “it’s something that you’re going to have to strongly consider because some of the ideas and some of the hatred – the absolute hatred – is coming from these areas.”11 Two days later, after being asked whether or not he would actually shut down mosques, Trump confirmed his position, stating that there was “absolutely no choice” in the matter.12 On November 16, 2015, Trump called for a policy of surveilling Muslim places of worship, asserting that “[y]ou’re going to have to watch and study the mosques, because a lot of talk is going on at the mosques.”13 On November 19, 2015, in response to being asked if he would agree with the creation of a database tracking Muslims in the United States, Trump stated, “I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.”14 Several days later, on November 23, 2015, he reiterated that “[w]e have to be really vigilant with respect to the Muslim population…we have to surveil; we have to create lists.”15 We have to be really vigilant with respect to the Muslim population…we have to surveil; we have to create lists. Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump These proposals all culminated in his announcement on December 7, 2015 that “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”16 He referred to the proposal as “a very important policy statement on the extraordinary influx of hatred & danger coming into our country.”17 When, over the course of the next several months, he was asked to defend this policy, Trump stood by banning Muslims, maintaining that “we’re having problems with Muslims coming into this country.”18 Total and Complete Shutdown | 4 | Muslim Advocates Trump also encouraged anti-Muslim bigotry throughout his candidacy by spreading misinformation and making blatantly anti-Muslim comments. In November 2015, for example, he falsely claimed to have watched “thousands and thousands of people” celebrate in Jersey City, New Jersey as the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001.19 Despite the widespread and near-immediate discrediting of this story,20 Trump stubbornly repeated it for several days, noting as he did so that Jersey City is a place “where you have large Arab populations.”21 Weeks later, in December 2015, Trump made a series of statements on Twitter in which he referred to a “massive Muslim problem”22 in the United Kingdom and offered praise for a right-wing British columnist’s “powerful writing on the U.K.’s Muslim problems.”23 In March 2016, he asserted his belief that “Islam hates us,” that its adherents harbor a “tremendous hatred,” and that it is “very hard” to make any distinction between “radical Islam” and the religion as a whole.24 Islam hates us. Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump Presidency Since his inauguration, President Trump has not disavowed—and instead has continued to put forward—the same anti-Muslim statements and positions that he promoted during his campaign. When signing the initial Muslim Ban executive order, which was formally entitled “Protecting the National from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” he looked up at the assembled crowd and remarked: “we all know what that means.”25 In discussing subsequent versions of the ban, President Trump decried the encroachment of “political correctness” onto his policy, referring to the second version of the Muslim Ban, for example, as “a watered down version of the first order” and stating his desire to “go all the way” and do “what [he] wanted to do in the first place.”26 In the context of President Trump’s history of comments about Muslims and their entry into the United States, those statements can only be understood as references to his longstanding desire to close off Muslim immigration into the United States.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lest We Forget the Horrors: a Catalog of Trump’S Worst Cruelties, Collusions, Corruptions, and Crimes
    COPYRIGHT MCSWEENEY’S 2020/2021 MCSWEENEYS.NET LEST WE FORGET THE HORRORS: A CATALOG OF TRUMP’S WORST CRUELTIES, COLLUSIONS, CORRUPTIONS, AND CRIMES THE COMPLETE LISTIN G : ATROCITIES 1- 1056 BY BEN PARKER, STEPHANIE STEINBRECHER, KELSEY RONAN, JOHN M C MURTRIE, SOPHIA D U ROSE, RACHEL VILLA, AND AMY SUMERTON - - - Early in President Trump’s term, McSweeney’s editors began to catalog the head-spinning number of misdeeds coming from his administration. We called this list a collection of Trump’s cruelties, collusions, and crimes, and it felt urgent then to track them, to ensure these horrors — happening almost daily — would not be forgotten. This election year, amid a harrowing global health, civil rights, humanitarian, and economic crisis, we know it’s never been more critical to note these horrors, to remember them, and to do all in our power to reverse them. - - - Various writers have compiled this list during the course of the Trump administration. Their work has been guided by invaluable journalistic resources, including WTFJHT, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other sources, to whom we are grateful. - - - ATROCITY KEY – Sexual Misconduct, Harassment, & Bullying – White Supremacy, Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, & Xenophobia – Public Statements / Tweets – Collusion with Russia & Obstruction of Justice – Trump Staff & Administration – Trump Family Business Dealings – Policy – Environment - - - BEFORE JANUARY 2017 1. – February 10, 2011 – In 2011, Donald Trump stoked false claims that Barack Obama had lied about his education. During a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said, “Our current president came out of nowhere. Came out of nowhere. In fact, I’ll go a step further: The people that went to school with him, they never saw him, they don’t know who he is.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trump Travel Ban: Rhetoric Vs Reality
    Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Faculty Articles School of Law Faculty Scholarship Summer 2019 The Trump Travel Ban: Rhetoric vs Reality Jeffrey F. Addicott St. Mary's University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Jeffrey F. Addicott, The Trump Travel Ban: Rhetoric vs Reality, 44 U. Dayton L. Rev. 491 (2019). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TRUMP TRAVEL BAN: RHETORIC VS REALITY Jeffrey F. Addicott* 1 "SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRA VEL BAN. Wow!" -PresidentDonald J. Trump A BSTRACT ..................................................................................................49 1 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................492 II. OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................494 Im]. LOWER FEDERAL COURT LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THE TRUMP TRAVEL B AN .................................................................................................495 IV.OVERVEW OF TRUMP V.HAWAII ...........................................................504 V. THE PLAINTIFFS' TEXTUAL ARGUMENT IN
    [Show full text]
  • If It's Broke, Fix It: Restoring Federal Government Ethics and Rule Of
    If it’s Broke, Fix it Restoring Federal Government Ethics and Rule of Law Edited by Norman Eisen The editor and authors of this report are deeply grateful to several indi- viduals who were indispensable in its research and production. Colby Galliher is a Project and Research Assistant in the Governance Studies program of the Brookings Institution. Maya Gros and Kate Tandberg both worked as Interns in the Governance Studies program at Brookings. All three of them conducted essential fact-checking and proofreading of the text, standardized the citations, and managed the report’s production by coordinating with the authors and editor. IF IT’S BROKE, FIX IT 1 Table of Contents Editor’s Note: A New Day Dawns ................................................................................. 3 By Norman Eisen Introduction ........................................................................................................ 7 President Trump’s Profiteering .................................................................................. 10 By Virginia Canter Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................... 12 By Walter Shaub Mandatory Divestitures ...................................................................................... 12 Blind-Managed Accounts .................................................................................... 12 Notification of Divestitures .................................................................................. 13 Discretionary Trusts
    [Show full text]
  • President Trump's Travel Ban: a Response to Terrorism
    President Trump’s Travel Ban: A Response to Terrorism On Jan. 27, President Trump signed an executive order that temporarily closed the nation’s borders to refugees from around the world and to people from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Part of the president’s order gives preferential treatment to Christian refugees from majority-Muslim countries who try to enter the U.S. By Jan. 28, a federal judge in Brooklyn had already blocked part of the president’s executive order, which has been labeled a ‘travel ban’ by the media, preventing the government from deporting some arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential order. But the judge stopped short of letting those new arrivals into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s actions. Supporters of the executive order say that it is a key step toward keeping our country safe and that the president legally has the power to restrict immigration. Opponents of the order say that it is illegal because it targets immigrants of a certain nationality and religion, which is against the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 and the 1st Amendment. Since then, President Trump withdrew his original order and issued a new executive order on March 6, revising his previous immigration order. The new order blocks citizens of six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States, the most significant hardening of immigration policy in generations, even with changes intended to blunt legal and political opposition. Is Trump’s executive order likely to help prevent future terrorist acts, as is its stated purpose? Trump states in the executive order: Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program.
    [Show full text]
  • Travel Ban 3.0 at the Supreme Court
    Travel Ban 3.0 at the Supreme Court Last Updated July 2, 2018 THE SUPREME COURT DECISION On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in the case of Trump v. Hawaii. (Travel Ban 3.0). Writing for the five-justice majority, Chief Justice Roberts held [that President Trump’s travel ban does not violate the constitution or the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)]. The Proclamation will continue to be fully in force indefinitely. The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case of Trump v. Hawaii on April 25, 2018 (Travel Ban 3.0). The Supreme Court had asked both parties to answer the four following questions: 1) Can the Court review the respondent’s challenge to Travel Ban 3.0? 2) Is Travel Ban 3.0 a lawful exercise of the President’s authority? 3) Is a nationwide injunction impermissibly overbroad? 4) Does Travel Ban 3.0 violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? The Majority Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts: Addressing first the plaintiff’s statutory claims, the Chief Justice said, “The Proclamation is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA.” He described 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) as a “comprehensive delegation” which “exudes deference to the President in every clause.” Within the statute he found authority for the President to determine whether, when, who, and on what conditions to exclude foreign nationals. The Chief Justice dismissed arguments made by plaintiffs and the dissent that Proclamation is inconsistent with the INA. He found, for example,
    [Show full text]
  • Via Electronic Mail February 18, 2021 the Honorable
    via electronic mail February 18, 2021 The Honorable Merrick B. Garland Attorney General-Designate Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Attorney General-Designate Garland: The Project On Government Oversight congratulates you on your nomination as attorney general. We are a nonpartisan independent watchdog that investigates and exposes waste, corruption, abuse of power, and when the government fails to serve the public or silences those who report wrongdoing. We champion reforms to achieve a more effective, ethical, and accountable federal government that safeguards constitutional principles. As such, we ask you to act quickly, should you be confirmed, to restore the Department of Justice’s commitment to civil rights and the rule of law. As you and President Joe Biden noted on the day he announced your nomination, the Department of Justice was founded after the Civil War in part to enforce compliance with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. But the department has a mixed history of living up to those commitments, and for the last four years it has been more likely to commit violations of fundamental rights than to hold officials accountable for violations. We ask you to change that by launching investigations into the previous administration’s violations of individual rights; links between law enforcement officials and white supremacist groups; and then-President Donald Trump’s efforts to deprive U.S. voters of a free and fair election. 1. Investigate and acknowledge the previous administration’s violations of individual rights. The prior administration, including the Department of Justice, repeatedly violated individual rights over the past four years.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2017 Trump Administration Travel Ban and International Graduate Applications at Two Texas Public Universities Dana Van De Walker and John R
    Peer-Reviewed Article © Higher Education Politics & Economics Volume 5, Issue 1 (2019), pp. 1-14 ISSN: 2162-3104 (Print), 2166-3750 (Online) doi: 10.32674/hepe.v5i1.1173 ojed.org/hepe The 2017 Trump Administration travel ban and international graduate applications at two Texas public universities Dana Van De Walker and John R. Slate Sam Houston State University/ United States ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the Trump administration ban on individuals from 7 Muslim-majority countries (i.e., Executive Order 13769), influenced prospective international graduate applicants to two Texas institutions. Inferential statistical procedures revealed the presence of a statistically significant, sharp decline in international graduate applicants, particularly from Muslim-majority countries. From Fall 2016 to Fall 2018, international graduate applicants from non-Muslim-majority countries declined 18.36%. Over this same time period, applicants from Muslim-majority countries declined 33.37%. Most notably, applicants from the 7 countries targeted in the travel ban declined 53.93%. Concerns clearly exist regarding the effects of this travel ban on international student mobility. Implications of these findings and recommendations for future research are discussed. Keywords: international students, Muslim students, government policy, Trump administration, travel ban Raya Bidshahri, an Iranian student at Boston University, quipped “We are treated like we’re terrorists, as if we want to cause trouble when above all we just want to make the United States a better place -- contributing whether it’s through research, studying, or entrepreneurship” (Lewin, 2017, para. 7). Bidshahri, who was beginning her final semester of college in January 2017, was one of the many international students and scholars directly affected by the Trump administration ban on individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries, or Executive Order 13769 (2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting the Nation from Honor Killings: the Construction of a Problem Symposium: Constitutional Law in the Trump Era Leti Volpp
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Minnesota Law School University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2019 Protecting the Nation from Honor Killings: The Construction of a Problem Symposium: Constitutional Law in the Trump Era Leti Volpp Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Volpp, Leti, "Protecting the Nation from Honor Killings: The onC struction of a Problem Symposium: Constitutional Law in the Trump Era" (2019). Constitutional Commentary. 1167. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/1167 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 4 - VOLPP.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 2/20/19 8:31 PM PROTECTING THE NATION FROM “HONOR KILLINGS”: THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROBLEM Leti Volpp* INTRODUCTION On January 27, 2017, seven days after his Presidency began, Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (hereinafter, “EO-1”).1 The order invoked the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and indicated that the United States sought to “prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.”2 In order to accomplish that goal, EO-1 temporarily suspended the entry of noncitizens from seven countries, temporarily suspended the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Landscape for International Students
    Focus THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION The New Landscape for International Students As a Chronicle of Higher Education individual subscriber, you receive premium, unrestricted access to the entire Chronicle Focus collection. Curated by our newsroom, these booklets compile the most popular and relevant higher-education news to provide you with in-depth looks at topics affecting campuses today. The Chronicle Focus collection explores student alcohol abuse, racial tension on campuses, and other emerging trends that have a significant impact on higher education. ©2017 by The Chronicle of Higher Education Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, forwarded (even for internal use), hosted online, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For bulk orders or special requests, contact The Chronicle at [email protected] ©2017 THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS resident Trump’s executive orders seeking to limit travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries have affected many people around the world who were considering studying in the United States, as well as the American colleges that would like to welcome them. The bans were initially blocked by the courts, but the U.S. PSupreme Court has allowed a narrower version of the ban to go into effect for now. This collection looks at the uncertainties and fears the orders have engendered, and what colleges are doing to overcome them.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Crises Compared: Impeachment, Brexit, and Executive Accountability
    Emory International Law Review Volume 35 Issue 3 2021 Constitutional Crises Compared: Impeachment, Brexit, and Executive Accountability René Reyes Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation René Reyes, Constitutional Crises Compared: Impeachment, Brexit, and Executive Accountability, 35 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 441 (2021). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol35/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory International Law Review by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REYES2_4.8.21 4/21/2021 2:31 PM CONSTITUTIONAL CRISES COMPARED: IMPEACHMENT, BREXIT, AND EXECUTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY René Reyes ABSTRACT The United States and the United Kingdom share a common legal history and a number of fundamental constitutional values. Some of these fundamental values may occasionally come into conflict. For example, in 2019, both the United States and the United Kingdom experienced considerable legal and political upheaval as debates over the scope of executive power and the accountability of the executive branch came to the fore. In the United States, these debates culminated in the impeachment of President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. In the United Kingdom, the furor focused on Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s approach to Brexit and his attempt to prorogue Parliament. The impeachment drama and the Brexit saga were so severe that each was frequently referred to as a “constitutional crisis” in the popular press and public discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • National Security, Immigration and the Muslim Bans Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia Penn State Law, University Park
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 75 | Issue 3 Article 9 Summer 11-5-2018 National Security, Immigration and the Muslim Bans Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia Penn State Law, University Park Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, and the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, National Security, Immigration and the Muslim Bans, 75 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1475 (2018), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol75/iss3/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. National Security, Immigration and the Muslim Bans Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................... 1475 II. Muslim Bans .................................................................. 1483 A. Muslim Ban 1.0 ........................................................ 1483 B. Muslim Ban 2.0 ........................................................ 1485 C. Muslim Ban 3.0 ........................................................ 1487 III. Legal Challenges to the Bans ........................................ 1488 IV. Outside the Courtroom .................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief in IRAP V. Trump
    19-1990 IN THE United States Court of Appeals FORd THE FOURTH CIRCUIT INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, on behalf of itself and its clients; HIAS, Inc., on behalf of itself and its clients; MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., on behalf of itself and its members; ARAB AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK, on behalf of itself and its clients; YEMENI-AMERICAN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and its members; IRAP JOHN DOE #4; IRAP JOHN DOE #5; IRAP JANE DOE #2; MUHAMMED METEAB; MOHAMAD MASHTA; GRANNAZ AMIRJAMSHIDI; SHAPOUR SHIRANI; AFSANEH KHAZAELI; IRANIAN ALLIANCES ACROSS BORDERS; IAAB JANE DOE #1; IAAB JANE DOE #3; IAAB JANE DOE #5; IAAB JOHN DOE #6; IRANIAN STUDENTS’ FOUNDATION, Iranian Alliances Across Borders Affiliate at the University of Maryland College Park; EBLAL ZAKZOK; FAHED MUQBIL; ZAKZOK JANE DOE #1; ZAKZOK JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, —v.— DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES (Caption continued on inside cover) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE MUSLIM BAR ASSOCIATIONS, MUSLIM LAW STUDENT ASSOCIATIONS, AND CUNY-CLEAR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES ADEEL A. MANGI Counsel of Record SOFIA G. SYED ABIGAIL E. MARION* PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 (212) 336-2000 Attorneys for Amici Curiae *Not admitted in this Court DEPARTMENT OF STATE; OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE; CHAD WOLF, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; MICHAEL R.
    [Show full text]